西南政法大学教授 邹东升  （赵一帆 摄）


中国发展型家庭政策的困境与变革儿
——基于生存权与发展权平等的理论逻辑

邹东升 王尚

　　生存和发展问题是人类自身最基本的问题。新常态不仅蕴含着平稳发展、持续发展、创新发展和自由发展的理念，而且是对以实现人的自由全面发展为核心的发展权的科学诠释。伴随着城镇化和市民化的发展，中国家庭处于传统家庭结构瓦解与社会转型期的漩涡中。缘此，本文以生存权与发展权平等为中心，在探究现有家庭政策供给与发展型家庭福利需求失衡的基础上，结合国内外相关家庭政策的发展现状,沿循发展型家庭政策变革路径,重构中国发展型家庭政策的理论逻辑。旨在探索通过对话式、精准型、人性化的制度安排，推进中国公民的生存权和发展权平等的实现。由于传统的家庭政策制度供给基本偏重于对公民生存权的关照，与现实社会的发展型家庭的福利需求产生失衡，具体表现为政策价值考量失当、政策目标定位偏差、政策主体参与缺位、政策配套支撑不足。此种供需失衡导致了“工作——家庭”冲突加剧，离婚率上升、幸福感下降，亚健康普遍、过劳死严重，甚至社会矛盾激化。要实现公民生存权与发展权的平等，必须对发展型家庭政策进行有针对性的变革和调适。首先，应从四个方面深化家庭意识观。第一，强化社会性别意识，推进先进性别文化的构建。第二，以家庭主体为单位，加强法律制度建设。第三，发挥政府部门的主导作用，逐渐将家庭意识纳入社会主流。第四，重视民主参与、民主监督等作用，推进家庭意识主流化。其次，应从两个方面优化发展权客体。第一，家庭政策应对边缘群体进行精准发力“靶向治疗”。第二，对有着不同“发展诉求”的家庭提供普遍而形式多样的支持。再次，应在三个层面上强化发展权主体。第一，政府有必要在家庭福利供给中扮演更为积极的角色，应当建立一个专司家庭事务的政府机构。第二，企业需要形成“帮助职工实现工作和家庭责任的平衡是企业的社会责任之一 ”的认识，化解“工作—生活”冲突进而有效提高职工工作效率。第三，社区建设要引入家庭政策的概念，提供家庭公共服务，成为稳定家庭发展、发挥家庭功能的基础。最后，应当转化协调性发展，确保发展型家庭政策的稳定性与统一性，强调各部门的政策在家庭领域确保系统性与互补性，破除各部门各自为政的困境。
 

Dilemma and Change of China’s Development-orientated Family Policies:
On the Basis of the Theoretical Logic of Equality in the Right to Subsistence and the Right to Development

Zhou Dongsheng &Wang Shang

Subsistence and development are two fundamental issues for human beings. The so called “new normal”proposed by the Chinese government not only implies notions of steady development, sustained development, innovative development and free development, it also accurately explains the “right to development” with people’s free and all-round development as its core. Along with the process of China’s urbanization and the increasing proportion of urban residents, Chinese families are also undergoing a period characterized by the collapse of traditional family structures and dramatic social transformation. In view ofthis, and focusing on the equality in right to subsistence and right to development, this paper follows reviews the changes in China’s development-oriented family policies, and reconstructed its theoretical logic through delving into imbalance between existing family policy supplies and development-oriented family welfare requirements, as well as the status quo of family policies at home and abroad. In so doing, this paper aims to facilitate the realization of Chinese citizens’rights tosubsistence and development through accurate, dialogue-based, and humanized institutional arrangements.

Since the traditional family policy institution supply basically pays more attention to citizens’right to subsistence, an imbalance between it and the welfare requirements of development-oriented families in society has been generated, which is specifically reflected in the inappropriate orientation of policies, deviations from policy targets and orientation, absence of stake-holders’participation and the inadequate support offered by policies. This kind of imbalance will inevitably lead to escalated work-family conflicts, a rocketing divorce rate, a lowering sense of happiness, widespread sub-health, a plague ofkaroshi, or even intensified social conflicts. Therefore, striking a balance between citizens’right to subsistence and right to development requires a targeted change and adaptation to development-oriented family policies. Firstly, social gender consciousness should be strengthened, and construction of advanced gender culture be promoted. Secondly, the construction of a family-based legal system should be stepped up. Thirdly, public sectors’ leading role should be given full play to gradually merge family awareness into the social mainstream. Last but not the least, special attention should be given to democratic participation and supervision in order to facilitate the integration of family awareness into the mainstream mentality of China. Besides, the objects of the right to development should be optimized in the following two aspects. For one thing, family policies should precisely target at those marginalized population for treatment. For another, universal and diversified supportshould be given to different families with different “development appeals”. Furthermore, the role played by subject of right to development should be highlighted. Firstly, the government should play a more active role in family welfare by establishing a governmental agency exclusively dedicated to family affairs. Secondly, business enterprises need to cultivate an awareness of “helping staff realize a sound balance between work and family responsibilities is one of their social responsibilities”, thus easing the “work-life” conflict and improving work efficiency. Thirdly, the concept of family policies should be introduced in community development in order to supply public family services so that they will become the foundation of family stability and family functioning. Finally, harmony-orientated development should be transformed to guarantee the stability and uniformity of development-oriented family policies, and policies promulgated by different governmental agencies must be properly realigned so that they will become mutually enhancing instead of being isolated from each other.